Profiting by the news
This week on August 28th, something happened that could yet change the way we think and determine what we know and how we know it. It received news coverage, but I suspect not enough. So what was this event? It was the delivery of this year’s MacTaggart Lecture at the Edinburgh TV Festival. It was given by James Murdoch, son of Rupert Murdoch and chairman of News Corporation of Europe and Asia. And why was this lecture so important? Well, let me say a little about it, and leave it to you to judge.
First of all, while the lecture has, as I noted, received some media attention, the summaries of it in the press do not altogether do it justice. So I recommend that you actually read the whole thing, and you can find it here. There are a couple of recurring themes in it, which can be summarised thus: (i) media regulation is bad (I was going to say, ‘mostly bad’, or even just ‘often bad’, but I have re-read the lecture and cannot see anything in it to suggest that he thinks it is ever good); and (ii) always let the media develop through customer choice, which in turn should never be influenced, guided or constrained. In explaining these principles Murdoch argues that his company’s free market approach is intellectually to be seen as an application of Darwin’s evolution theory, while those who favour or apply regulation are the media equivalents of the followers of creationism.
But it is clear that Murdoch was delivering a story with a punch line, so we may as well come straight to that, the very last sentence in the lecture:
‘The only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit.’
In many ways you have to admire the Murdoch empire, which has prospered despite early disasters and near-bankruptcies. It has delivered some very smart media strategies and, I have no doubt, a number of popular media products. It has also gained a position in global media markets in English that give it an awesome power. But it seems to see one huge threat to the onward march of its corporate success, and that is the BBC. The BBC, Murdoch argues, is a broadcaster owned by the state and regulated by it, and subject to all sorts of rules and restrictions he clearly regards as barmy (including, as he points out, the requirement to give equal air time to opposing political or other viewpoints). But most of all his complaint is that the BBC has too much money, and is able to use its resources to expand its services and crowd out the competition. It is not driven by what customers want, he suggests, but by what regulators and ministers and various do-gooders want them to want. He sees this as particularly threatening as the previously separate media of broadcast and print start to merge, and in the light of the growth of the internet as a news medium. This is how he sees the BBC’s operations in this new world:
‘Most importantly, in this all-media marketplace, the expansion of state-sponsored journalism is a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision, which are so important for our democracy. Dumping free, state-sponsored news on the market makes it incredibly difficult for journalism to flourish on the internet. Yet it is essential for the future of independent digital journalism that a fair price can be charged for news to people who value it.
We seem to have decided as a society to let independence and plurality wither. To let the BBC throttle the news market and then get bigger to compensate.’
So what are we to make of all this? Is state-owned public broadcasting an assault on freedom of expression and independent news gathering, as Murdoch asserts? Is the idea that an organisation like the BBC represents impartiality just an illusion? Would an unregulated broadcast market still be selling independent journalism and programming? Murdoch’s answer to the latter, by the way, is to point to the growing arts coverage of Sky TV as proof that for-profit broadcasting does not slide into the gutter.
So, is the era of public service broadcasting over, or should it be? What does or would this mean for RTE? And what does the punter really want?
Explore posts in the same categories: culture, societyTags: BBC, British Broadcasting Corporation, James Murdoch, News Corporation
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
August 30, 2009 at 1:12 am
I’m not sure which we should be more incredulous at: Murdoch claiming that there should be less regulation of the media, or the classification of RTE as being on a par with the standards of the BBC!
Either way, it’s a silly season thing. Murdoch’s case is hopelessly laughable and has been for a very long time (I’d be quite shocked if we’d not seen this same discussion played out a few times over the history of commercial news media). And this could never happen in Ireland because of the constitutional language surrounding our right to free speech (such as it is).
And noone in their right minds would ever consider doing as he’s asking, because none of us want to live in the kind of dystopia that the resultant race to the bottom would bring about.
Except maybe the Americans, because they’re already used to Fox.
August 30, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Mark, the reference to RTE is because it too is a state-owned broadcaster with licence fee income.
Your reference to Fox reminds me of one other thing: the impact of broadcasters in particular when it comes to news is unreasonably significant. For far too many people, if they hear something described as a fact on the television, they believe it is a fact. When therefore a channel such as Fox puts about, shall we say, highly arguable interpretations of current news, but without declaring a bias or a vested interest, it has a very dangerous impact.
August 30, 2009 at 10:59 am
I have little time for Murdoch or News Corporation. If Murdoch Junior wants to talk about survival of the fittest, he might consider whether he was the most appropriate to become Chairman and CEO of News Corp (a publicly traded company, remember). To put it mildly, the selection environment seems rather benign. Yet, despite my lack of sympathy, I agree with Murdoch on two important points.
1. Ironically, in trying to justify its public funding, the BBC neglects its public service remit. BBC1′s output seems identical to that of ITV. One wonders whether Jonathan Ross’ salary is in the public interest? Whether the removal of Eastenders from our screens would harm societal well-being?
2. Resource dependency creates conflicts of interest, reducing impartiality. The government ultimately determines the BBC budget, so the BBC has an interest to be kind to the party in power or parties that promise greater public spending. Of course, News Corp also has important resources – thankfully, it impeded Neil Kinnock from coming to power in 1992. Murdoch’s speech, intended primarily for the future Conservative government, could be seen as a subtle quid pro quo.
This question of resource dependency is directly relevant to universities. Private university education is generally not highly regarded in the UK or Ireland because it is poorly understood. Many people fail to distinguish for-profit from private (which may make a surplus, but not a profit). The goal of private education is usually to reduce state interference. Looking at the current policy debates in Ireland, the risks of becoming dependent on governments are all too apparent.
August 30, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Donal, there is a major difference between private, not-for-profit universities (and I have blogged on this) and News Corp. The latter is very much profit-oriented. And I doubt the UK Conservatives owe Murdoch a favour; Murdoch strongly support the Labour Party for a while.
August 31, 2009 at 6:03 am
No one is likening News Corporation to private universities. Rather, Murdoch’s point is precisely that dependency on the state for resources has consequences for the behavior of dependent bodies (in this case, a lack of impartiality). I myself am part of a private, not-for-profit institution that does not accept any state funding; the motivation for not accepting state funding is to ensure autonomy and independence.
The 1992 election result was turned in the last days in a large part by the efforts of News Corporation. Though I dislike this company, fortunately their headline “Will the last one left please turn out the lights?” protected us from Kinnock’s leadership.
August 30, 2009 at 11:23 am
Do you not think it’s odd that someone sitting at the top of a large organisation should start firing broadsides of Darwin at an even bigger one. The latter, which would never make the error of using Darwin in the first place.
Also, there is the whiff of fear about all of this, given the huge shift in Ad revenue to anyone with a blog and a few thousand readers. While the Beeb is not dependent on this stream in any way.
August 30, 2009 at 10:50 pm
I agree, Vincent. The odd thing about Murdoch’s reference to Darwin is that he probably can’t allow Fox News to broadcast that part of his speech. If Fox viewers heard him praise Darwin and criticise creationism many of them would be apoplectic.
August 31, 2009 at 4:11 am
I listen to BBC Radio 4′s Today program for the sheer entertainment of hearing politicians being cut to shreds by interviewers who can do so with surgical precision, well-researched facts and a light, polite and sometimes disbelieving tone.
The idea that this particular state sponsored news provider is “a threat to the … independence of news provision” leaves me gasping. I live in Hong Kong and also listen to Backchat, a morning talk show from the Hong Kong government-sponsored station RTHK, where criticism of government policies and competence is frequently aired. These two may well be exceptions, I know what it’s like across the boundary in mainland China.
Nowadays my sampling of the BBC is from podcasts and fine documentaries that we see on our TV here, so it’s not likely to be fully representative, and the point about Jonathan Ross is well made. I hope there are not too many more.
August 31, 2009 at 6:08 am
As an expatriate, I also listen to Radio 4 and sometimes watch BBC World News. Radio 4 and the World Service are exemplars of BBC’s public service remit. That is, they would be unlikely to be provided by private broadcasters. Unfortunately, the typical BBC programming on its domestic channels is very different – with some exceptions on BBC 2 and BBC 4 – as it competes head on with ITV and Sky.
September 17, 2009 at 10:52 am
The BBC is far better than any of the commercial channels and the license fee makes this possible.
I also find it funny that somebody who is head of a company that has $32 billion in revene each year can complain about the BBC, that gets £4.3 billion.